Acta oto-laryngologica · 2020
Central versus marginal tympanic membrane perforations: does it matter? An analysis of 792 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Selaimen Fábio André, Rosito Leticia Petersen Schmidt, Silva Mauricio Noschang Lopes, Silva Alice Lang, Stanham Valentina de Souza, Costa Sady Selaimen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies concerning chronic otitis media without cholesteatoma.
OBJECTIVES: To perform an analysis of tympanic membrane perforations (TMP), compare the parameters of central and marginal TMP, combining both the traditional and more recent technologies available.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 792 consecutive patients. The TMP subgroups were divided by central and marginal locations and compared based on signs suggestive of previous tympanic retraction, namely, medialized malleus, tympanic remnants over the promontory, tympanic remnants over the ossicular chain, and incus/stapes erosion. Analysis of the status of the contralateral ear (CLE).
RESULTS: Central TMP was diagnosed in 79.8%. Compared with the central group, the marginal group had more reported hearing loss (95.6%), greater conductive hearing loss (pure tone average for air-conduction 43.3 dB and average air-bone gap of 28.7 dB), a larger perforated area (46.45%), more posteroinferior quadrant involvement, a greater number retraction signs prior to the TMP, and more changes in the CLE (71%).
CONCLUSION: The differences between TMP subgroups are highlighted when we use all technologies available to compare them. Marginal TMPs have more altered parameters than central TMPs.
SIGNIFICANCE: There is a great possibility to enhance the knowledge of TMPs and to improve the pathogenesis-based treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To perform an analysis of tympanic membrane perforations (TMP), compare the parameters of central and marginal TMP, combining both the traditional and more recent technologies available.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 792 consecutive patients. The TMP subgroups were divided by central and marginal locations and compared based on signs suggestive of previous tympanic retraction, namely, medialized malleus, tympanic remnants over the promontory, tympanic remnants over the ossicular chain, and incus/stapes erosion. Analysis of the status of the contralateral ear (CLE).
RESULTS: Central TMP was diagnosed in 79.8%. Compared with the central group, the marginal group had more reported hearing loss (95.6%), greater conductive hearing loss (pure tone average for air-conduction 43.3 dB and average air-bone gap of 28.7 dB), a larger perforated area (46.45%), more posteroinferior quadrant involvement, a greater number retraction signs prior to the TMP, and more changes in the CLE (71%).
CONCLUSION: The differences between TMP subgroups are highlighted when we use all technologies available to compare them. Marginal TMPs have more altered parameters than central TMPs.
SIGNIFICANCE: There is a great possibility to enhance the knowledge of TMPs and to improve the pathogenesis-based treatment.